Case: City of Shoreline v. United States Department of Transportation
2:26-cv-01311 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Filed Date: April 16, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case challenges retroactive conditions on federal grants that require recipients to certify non-compliance with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs to receive funding. These conditions were created in response to the Trump administration’s Executive Order No. 14173—concerning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs—and Section 3(g) of Executive Order No. 14168—addressing "gender ideology."
Before filing a complaint, the plaintiff, the City of Shoreline, Washington, filed a notice of related cases with City of Seattle v. Trump (2:25-cv-01435) and King County v. Turner (2:25-cv-00814).
The City of Shoreline, Washington, filed suit on April 17, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and its Secretary, alleging unlawful overreach in federal grant administration. Represented by Lawyers for Good Government, the city claimed it had secured a $20 million grant under DOT’s Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Program in June 2023 to fund critical transportation improvements, including connecting the west side of I-5 to the area’s new light rail station. The city went on to say that it acquired this grant only to face retroactive conditions that diverged from the grant’s original purpose. Specifically, DOT allegedly required grantees to certify that they did not operate any DEI initiatives and agreed that their compliance with federal nondiscrimination laws was “material” to payment under the False Claims Act (FCA). The complaint alleged that this created a coercive dilemma between foregoing funding and halting a project already underway or accepting legally dubious terms and facing the threat of federal investigations and liability, while conflicting with the city’s own local laws supporting DEI and LGBTQ+ individuals.
Shoreline brought eight counts under the Spending Clause, separation of powers, the Fifth and Tenth Amendments, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by exceeding statutory authority, bypassing required rulemaking procedures, and acting arbitrarily and capriciously, thereby undermining the city’s ability to execute its transportation initiatives. To remedy these alleged harms, Shoreline sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including the invalidation of the contested conditions, a stay on their enforcement, and an order permanently barring DOT from imposing similar requirements in the future. This case was assigned to District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein.
On June 2, 2026, all plaintiffs in City of Seattle v. Trump moved for a preliminary injunction, and on June 8, 2026, the City of Shoreline also moved for a preliminary injunction against the defendants. On June 29, 2026, the court granted the consolidated motions for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the conditions on federal grants were untethered to the purposes of the relevant grant programs, lacked a reasoned explanation for their imposition, and were therefore arbitrary and capricious. Additionally, the court held that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm due to the coercive nature of the conditions and the disruption of essential public services, while the balance of equities and public interest favored granting relief. As a result, the court enjoined federal defendants from enforcing the challenged provisions against the plaintiffs, ordered defendants to treat prior enforcement actions as null and void, and required written notice and a compliance status report within three court days, while denying requests for a bond or stay of the injunction. 2026 WL 1862024.
Summary Authors
Madeline Dollard (8/17/2026)
Related Cases
King County v. Turner, Western District of Washington (2025)
City of Seattle v. Trump, Western District of Washington (2025)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73202365/parties/city-of-shoreline-v-united-states-department-of-transportation/
Ainsworth-Taylor, Julie K. (Washington)
Ching, Kunyu (Washington)
DiBianco, Gary (Washington)
King, Margaret J (Washington)
Bishop, Sarah Louise (Washington)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73202365/city-of-shoreline-v-united-states-department-of-transportation/
Last updated Sept. 1, 2026, 3:09 a.m.
Docket for: City of Shoreline v. United States Department of Transportation
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Public Accommodations/ Contracting/ Organizational Discrimination
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
- Grant/Contract rescissions, Defunding or Other Threats against Private Entities
- Diversity/Equity/Inclusion/Accessibility (DEIA) and/or Antisemitism
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 16, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The City of Shoreline, Washington
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Leave Act, 5 U.S.C. § 6329a
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Constitutional Clause(s):
Federalism (including 10th Amendment)
Spending/Appropriations Clauses
Other Dockets:
Western District of Washington 2:26-cv-01311
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Environmental Justice and Resources:
LGBTQ+:
Case Summary of City of Shoreline v. United States Department of Transportation, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48340/ (last updated 8/17/2026).